I own the Canon 135f/2, I admit up front I have never owned a Zeiss Lens, but I've heard/read great things about them, but, the Canon 135f/2 is just a superb Lens, would the Zeiss be any better do you think ?? I understand the Zeiss lenses are Manual Focus, and for me although not a Killer, I have the 17 24 TSE Canons, it does make life a little more difficult, I sold my Leica M9 for this reason, lovely camera but the Manual Focus became an issue for me (Age Factor). Si I'm really interested to hear opinions on the Zeiss versus the Canon.

Logged

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing

Would be nice if this has AF. I love my 35mm f2 Zeiss on my RX1 - solid & sharp.

Will wait for rumor Sigma Art 135mm f1.8 OS

Hi Dylan777, but I think (not sure) the Sigma Art 135 f/1.8 is designed for APSC ?? I use FF (Except I do still have a 1DMK IV), so may not be of much use on FF, but I do own the Sigma Art 35f/1.4 and I find that a very good Lens.

Logged

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing

Would be nice if this has AF. I love my 35mm f2 Zeiss on my RX1 - solid & sharp.

Will wait for rumor Sigma Art 135mm f1.8 OS

Hi Dylan777, but I think (not sure) the Sigma Art 135 f/1.8 is designed for APSC ?? I use FF (Except I do still have a 1DMK IV), so may not be of much use on FF, but I do own the Sigma Art 35f/1.4 and I find that a very good Lens.

Would be nice if this has AF. I love my 35mm f2 Zeiss on my RX1 - solid & sharp.

Will wait for rumor Sigma Art 135mm f1.8 OS

Hi Dylan777, but I think (not sure) the Sigma Art 135 f/1.8 is designed for APSC ?? I use FF (Except I do still have a 1DMK IV), so may not be of much use on FF, but I do own the Sigma Art 35f/1.4 and I find that a very good Lens.

In Sigma Langua DC=APSC, DG=FF so the party is on!

...except, of course, that the Sigma lens is only a rumor, with no official announcement from Sigma.

(Which, incidentally, is exactly how Canon should have handled the 200-400 but didn't....)

I own the Canon 135f/2, I admit up front I have never owned a Zeiss Lens, but I've heard/read great things about them, but, the Canon 135f/2 is just a superb Lens, would the Zeiss be any better do you think ?? I understand the Zeiss lenses are Manual Focus, and for me although not a Killer, I have the 17 24 TSE Canons, it does make life a little more difficult, I sold my Leica M9 for this reason, lovely camera but the Manual Focus became an issue for me (Age Factor). Si I'm really interested to hear opinions on the Zeiss versus the Canon.

I use Canon 135L as well as 24 TSE II and have owned MF Zeiss. Manual-focusing a wide angle is WORLDS easier than 135mm, so if MF is already an issue with Leica, I would stick with Canon 135L, which as we all know is a superb lens. Who knows, from preliminary reports, the Zeiss 135 may have less CA and sharper wide open, but do we really need sharper than 135L? Zeiss also costs double the current 135L street price and is heavier.

Would be nice if this has AF. I love my 35mm f2 Zeiss on my RX1 - solid & sharp.

Will wait for rumor Sigma Art 135mm f1.8 OS

Hi Dylan777, but I think (not sure) the Sigma Art 135 f/1.8 is designed for APSC ?? I use FF (Except I do still have a 1DMK IV), so may not be of much use on FF, but I do own the Sigma Art 35f/1.4 and I find that a very good Lens.

In Sigma Langua DC=APSC, DG=FF so the party is on!

...except, of course, that the Sigma lens is only a rumor, with no official announcement from Sigma.

(Which, incidentally, is exactly how Canon should have handled the 200-400 but didn't....)

Cheers,

b&

Spot on, about the 200-400

Logged

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing

Would be nice if this has AF. I love my 35mm f2 Zeiss on my RX1 - solid & sharp.

Will wait for rumor Sigma Art 135mm f1.8 OS

Hi Dylan777, but I think (not sure) the Sigma Art 135 f/1.8 is designed for APSC ?? I use FF (Except I do still have a 1DMK IV), so may not be of much use on FF, but I do own the Sigma Art 35f/1.4 and I find that a very good Lens.

In Sigma Langua DC=APSC, DG=FF so the party is on!

...except, of course, that the Sigma lens is only a rumor, with no official announcement from Sigma.

(Which, incidentally, is exactly how Canon should have handled the 200-400 but didn't....)

Cheers,

b&

No No No. This is CANON Rumors. Most things said here about Canon are suspect. But things said about Sigma have to be true!

I use Canon 135L as well as 24 TSE II and have owned MF Zeiss. Manual-focusing a wide angle is WORLDS easier than 135mm, so if MF is already an issue with Leica, I would stick with Canon 135L, which as we all know is a superb lens. Who knows, from preliminary reports, the Zeiss 135 may have less CA and sharper wide open, but do we really need sharper than 135L? Zeiss also costs double the current 135L street price and is heavier.

+1

At wide aperatures and portrait ranges the DOF with a 135mm are razor thin. Manual focus would be a difficult and time consuming. I'm extremely happy with my Canon 135L, I can easily ignore this lens when/if it does go into production.

Manual focus is NOT difficult with the Zeiss - as long as the subject is not moving of course - even on distant subjects, because it is amazingly clear wide open. It pops in the viewfinder more than with any other lens I have ever used.

Lloyd Chambers has tested it against the 135L. Yes it is better corrected and sharper, especially at wider apertures. But it's only the beginning of the story. The Zeiss is a new design which will do justice to the future high MP sensors, likely more than the 135L is capable of.